The only way to get a multiton elephant to perform the ridiculously contrived and unnatural tricks you see in the circus, or to be conditioned to walk in circles to provide rides at county fairs and roadside amusements, is through the constant threat of physical punishment. Elephants do not perform for peanuts. Indeed, exhibitors who use elephants for entertainment brandish a firepoker-like device known as a “bullhook” or “ankus” to strike and jab elephants in the most sensitive parts of their bodies. While the worst abuses take place during training behind closed doors, elephant handlers are never seen without their bullhooks during performances because the mere presence of the bullhook is a reminder to the elephant of the pain that awaits her if she doesn’t do as commanded.

Fortunately, localities around the country have started prohibiting or restricting the use of cruel training tools used to make elephants and big cats dance in circles or jump through rings of fire. It is these local legislative changes that precipitated Ringling Bros.’ parent corporation to end using elephants for its circus—complying with new legislation all over the country was just too complicated for the traveling act which is on the road 50 weeks out of the year. However, in the past month, we have seen states stepping up to do the right thing for elephants, too.

In July 2016, Rhode Island became the first state to enact a statewide bullhook ban when Gov. Gina Raimondo signed legislation prohibiting use of the cruel devices. Just this week, California became the second with Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bullhook ban into law.

Elephant advocates will recall that Gov. Brown vetoed a criminal bullhook ban that passed both houses during the 2014-15 legislative session due to his stated wish not to further complicate the California Penal Code. Bill sponsor Sen. Ricardo Lara tweaked the language of the bill so that violations would be subject to civil penalties, including revocation of any state-issued wildlife permits, rather than criminal prosecution. No time has been lost in the process of making these changes since both included an effective date of January 1, 2018.

Ringling Bros. stopped traveling with elephants in May 2016, and all of the accredited zoos in California use protected contact, a positive-reinforcement style of elephant management that is safer and more humane because handlers never share the same unrestricted free space with elephants—and therefore do not need to use bullhooks. So what impact will SB 1062 have? You may recall that Have Trunk Will Travel (HTWT), the Perris, Calif.-based exhibitor that supplies elephants for movies, weddings, commercials, parties and elephant rides at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo, was captured on undercover video violently abusing elephants with bullhooks and electric shock, including an elephant named Tai who has been used in a number of movies, including Water for Elephants. Since the undercover video footage became publicly available, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums ended its affiliation with HTWT and all county fairs across the State of California where HTWT used to provide elephant rides have cut ties with the company. The language in SB 1062 subject HTWT to civil penalties including revocation of the permits necessary for it to lawfully keep elephants in the state for treating and training the elephants the way it does.

As circuses pivot away from use of elephants, as the curtain is being peeled back on the dark side of animals used in Hollywood, and blockbuster movies like Rise of the Planet of the Apes and television shows like The Walking Dead are opting to use computer generated imaging and animatronics rather than live animals, days are numbered for exploitative companies like Have Trunk Will Travel.

When it comes to elephants, big cats and other exotic animals used for human amusement, abuse is the rule—not the exception—which is why the Animal Legal Defense Fund will continue to urge and support critical legal and regulatory changes that will bring an end to the cruel exploitation of rare and endangered species once and for all.

Today, an Asian elephant named Lucky shuffles and sways in a zoo in San Antonio, Texas, where she has spent 53 long years. Since the death of her companion in 2013, Lucky has lived entirely alone in captivity, deprived of the reassuring touch of other elephants so fundamental to her wellbeing. While the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) requires that a female Asian elephant live with at least two Asian elephant companions, the zoo apparently plans to keep Lucky in forced solitude the rest of her life.

Appalled by this cruel confinement, in December 2015, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a lawsuit against the San Antonio Zoo for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA), alleging that the conditions of Lucky’s captivity have caused her psychological torment and physical injury. In late January, Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a ruling that will allow ALDF’s ESA lawsuit on behalf of Lucky to proceed, refuting the Zoo’s untenable argument that captive wildlife are not protected by the ESA.

Human beings have long celebrated the exceptional qualities of elephants—their capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and grief, their ability to communicate across vast distances, and their strong and enduring familial bonds. But it wasn’t until more recently that society began to ask important questions—questions about the effects of captivity on animals that roam up to fifty miles a day in the wild, about what goes on behind the scenes when elephants aren’t performing tricks for our amusement—and the answers, invariably involving horrific suffering, proved incompatible with our values.

As circuses and zoos have been confronted with the growing public and legal opposition to elephant captivity, the practice of exploiting these emotionally complex creatures for profit and entertainment has begun edging closer to extinction. One of the most notorious elephant profiteers, Ringling Brothers, recently announced an accelerated timeline for phasing out elephants from its shows. Originally slated for 2018, the circus recently announced its intent to phase out the elephant act in May 2016. Additionally, since 1998, 25 American zoos have either closed or announced plans to close their elephant exhibits, citing an inability to provide them with adequate care. Indeed, a study by the Seattle Times found that of the 390 elephants that died at accredited U.S. zoos in the past 50 years, the majority did so from injury or disease directly related to the conditions of their confinement.

Relief for Lucky cannot come soon enough. Like so many of her captive peers, Lucky has an abnormal gait and probable arthritis. Her best friend, Ginny, was euthanized by the Zoo in 2004 due to severe arthritis and foot infections, both common in captive elephants due to standing on hard, unnatural surfaces all day without adequate room to roam.

Fortunately, we have reason to be optimistic about Lucky’s chances in the ESA case, thanks to ALDF’s successful case against Cricket Hollow Zoo in Iowa. In early February, Judge Jon Stuart Scoles of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa issued an order agreeing with ALDF’s argument that the owners of an Iowa roadside zoo had violated the ESA by providing substandard care for their four tigers and three lemurs.

ALDF is proud to have contributed to the evolution of both the law and society’s treatment of captive elephants, and look forward to continuing to do so as advocates for Lucky—and, by extension, for every animal so cruelly confined, including:

Lolita, a captive orca held in the smallest orca tank in North America at the Miami Seaquarium. In July 2015, ALDF and a coalition of partners brought a lawsuit against Seaquarium citing the conditions of her captivity as a violation of the ESA.

Candy, the country’s loneliest chimpanzee who, like Lucky, has spent more than fifty years in captivity, forty of them in solitary confinement. In November 2015, ALDF filed suit against the Dixie Landin’ amusement park for isolating and neglecting Candy in violation of the ESA.

Ricky, a female black bear held for 16 years in an undersized chain-link and concrete cage at a Pennsylvania roadside attraction, on whose behalf ALDF filed suit in December 2014. Two months later, the owner agreed to a settlement wherein Ricky would be released to live out her days in a sanctuary filled with rolling grassland in Colorado.

Ben, a bear held at a North Carolina roadside attraction, on whose behalf ALDF filed a lawsuit in April 2012 against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its decision to renew the owners’ federal Animal Welfare Act license. The lawsuit resulted in a victory four months later when a Cumberland County District Court injunction ordered Ben released to a California sanctuary.

Elephant abusers, like most owners of captive wildlife, won’t do the right thing until the wrong thing stops being profitable. People can do their part by not patronizing those circuses and zoos that keep elephants in cruel confinement, and by supporting laws that regulate and restrict elephant captivity. When public awareness, legislative advocacy, and cutting edge litigation ultimately combine to make elephant captivity cost prohibitive, circuses and zoos will be quick to send the elephants to sanctuaries, where they may enjoy the natural habitats and lasting friendships so vital to their survival.

DALLAS, TX – Today 17 wild-caught African elephants are scheduled to arrive in Dallas, TX, after which elephants bound for the Dallas Zoo will be off-loaded and remaining elephants will be flown to their final destinations at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, NB and the Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, KS. A coalition of animal protection organizations, including Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), PETA, Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and captive wildlife attorney Deborah Robinson, is demanding an inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of all 17 elephants upon arrival.

The letter addressed to Robert Gibbens, a veterinarian and the Western Regional Director of USDA-APHIS-Animal Care, reads:

“Given that these animals have been sedated and subjected to a journey that will ultimately be several days long in duration, it is critical that the USDA stands ready to inspect and monitor the arrival of these elephants to better ensure compliance with the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).”

“Prioritizing dollars over elephant welfare is business as usual for Dallas Zoo Management,” says Carney Anne Nasser, Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel for Wildlife and Regulatory Affairs and a former Assistant City Attorney for the City of Dallas. “Snatching elephants out of the wild and forcing them to live in tiny enclosures that deny them everything that is natural and important to them has nothing to do with legitimate conservation and everything to do with selling tickets.”

Animal protection groups and conservationists worldwide vehemently opposed the sale and importation of the elephants in November 2015 when the permit application was before the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS).

The intended use of these 17 elephants is to further the captive breeding programs that have proven unsustainable in U.S. zoos. This violates the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the treaty that regulates international trade in wildlife, which expressly defines captive breeding programs as “commercial activity” and prohibits the import of African elephants for such purposes.

San Antonio, TX — Today, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), the nation’s preeminent legal advocacy organization for animals, learned that its Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuit on behalf of Lucky the Elephant against the San Antonio Zoo would move forward as planned.

Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the Zoo’s efforts to evade jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs had properly filed suit under the ESA and not, as the Zoo had misleadingly argued in its motion to dismiss, under the federal Animal Welfare Act.

ALDF, with pro bono support from Dentons LLP and local attorney Melissa Lesniak, represents three San Antonio residents who oppose the Zoo’s unlawful confinement of Lucky. The suit alleges that she is being “harmed” and “harassed” in violation of the ESA because the Zoo confines Lucky alone, without another Asian elephant companion, in an enclosure too small to meet her needs, with little to no shelter from the sun, and on a hard, species-inappropriate substrate.

As a consequence of the Judge’s ruling, the lawsuit will proceed to discovery, during which ALDF will seek access to records of the Zoo’s elephant-keeping program and to conduct independent veterinary and site-specific analyses of Lucky and her enclosure.

Lucky, an endangered Asian elephant, was captured from the wilds of Thailand before her first birthday. She has spent the last 53 years at the San Antonio Zoo, and has been entirely alone for the past three. Scientists assert that Asian elephants are emotionally, socially, and psychologically complex animals, who recognize themselves in a mirror and exhibit higher order emotions like mourning and altruistic behavior; experts agree that elephants cannot thrive in captivity, especially when held in forced solitude.

ALDF’s lawsuit seeks to end the Zoo’s unlawful confinement of Lucky and asks the Court to order her retirement to sanctuary, where she can socialize with other elephants and enjoy a much larger, species-appropriate habitat.

“Lucky has served her time entertaining the residents of San Antonio,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, “and deserves a happy and healthy retirement. We want her to live out her life living as an elephant should—with other elephants in as natural an environment as possible.”

San Antonio, TX. — The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), the nation’s leading legal advocacy organization for animals, today filed a lawsuit against the San Antonio Zoo for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with its treatment of its lone remaining Asian elephant, Lucky.

The suit alleges that the conditions of Lucky’s captivity injure her both physically and psychologically. The zoo’s ESA violations include:

Inadequate shelter: Elephants are susceptible to overheating and their skin is sensitive to strong sun. The pool available to Lucky is too shallow to allow her to submerge and cool herself. After receiving ALDF’s intent-to-sue notice, the Zoo planted a few trees, but Lucky took them down by using them as scratching posts and playing with them, and the zoo never replaced or maintained them.

Inappropriate substrate: The exhibit floor where Lucky lives consists of a thin layer of sand compacted on a hard undersurface of limestone—contributing to Lucky’s abnormal gait and her probable arthritis and joint calcification. Spending hours every day standing on such an unyielding surface will worsen Lucky’s medical conditions and could lead to osteomyelitis (terminal bone disease).

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and its clients would like to see Lucky go to a sanctuary, where she could have the companionship of other Asian elephants, a more natural environment, and large spaces that would allow her to move and walk, activity being the best way to counteract or halt her physical deterioration.

San Antonio City Council member Joe Krier invited both parties to mediate this dispute. Despite ALDF’s willingness to stay this litigation and participate in mediation to ascertain Lucky’s best interests, the zoo declined to participate. Previously, the zoo had twice declined to discuss settlement possibilities with ALDF.

“More and more zoos have admitted that they cannot meet elephants’ complex needs and have closed their elephant exhibits,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of Animal Legal Defense Fund. “Instead of acknowledging the obvious–that it cannot meet Lucky’s needs–the San Antonio Zoo makes excuses about why it is unwilling to allow her to have a better life. We hope the zoo will choose to let Lucky live out her days in the more natural environment of a sanctuary, rather than stand around waiting to die where she is now.”

ALDF’s suit was filed on behalf of three San Antonio residents and is backed by the international nonprofit One World Conservation, which has campaigned on Lucky’s behalf since 2008. Melissa Lesniak, a San Antonio-based animal welfare and criminal defense attorney, and the international law firm Dentons LLP are providing pro bono legal assistance.

Three American zoos have orchestrated a fairly tricky sleight-of-hand to remove 18 African elephants from their native grasslands and plant them in expensive faux-habitat exhibits in the U.S.

The Dallas Zoo, the Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, Kansas, and the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska, committed to pay a “significant contribution”—$450,000—to Big Game Parks, a family-run organization that manages wildlife for the government of Swaziland in three of that nation’s protected areas. In exchange, each zoo will receive six elephants from Swaziland, transported first via 747, then in shipping crates on the backs of tractor-trailers to the zoos’ complexes in Dallas, Wichita, and Omaha.

The $450,000, however, is not technically a direct payment for taking possession of the elephants. The zoos describe the deal as a “contribution” to Big Game Parks and Swaziland’s black rhinoceros conservation efforts.

According to Big Game Parks, the nation’s protected areas are overcrowded with elephants and, because of this, endangered black rhinos are being pushed closer to extinction. To hear the zoos’ administrators tell it in the press, they “agreed to take ownership” of the elephants, practically as a favor to the elephants and to the poor, drought-ridden nation of Swaziland. In late September, news articles supportive of the importation ran in the largest newspapers in the zoos’ three cities, all touting the “win-win” nature of the transaction for the elephants and the rhinos.

Notably, as of September, the Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita had raised $10.6 million for construction of a new elephant exhibit, of which half was contributed by the county government. The Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha was in the final stages of constructing its $73 million African Grasslands project, including a $15 million elephant building. At that time, the Executive Director and CEO of the Doorly Zoo told the Omaha World-Herald, “When people come to a zoo like ours, they expect to see elephants.” And when for-profit zoos build multi-million dollar compounds, they expect a return on investment.

Swaziland is a poor country. Big Game Parks manages its wildlife with little if any government oversight. The organization has threatened to kill the 18 elephants if permits allowing their exportation are not issued. They do not point out that the entire population of fewer than 35 elephants occupies only small fenced portions of the reserves and poses no considerable threat to other wildlife. No evidence has been presented to show significant habitat competition with rhinos. Nor have they shown that they’ve made any significant efforts to move the elephants to protected areas elsewhere in Africa where they would not be subjected to incarceration or family destruction.

Big Game Parks stands to benefit financially from the transaction, as do the American zoos, but both parties know that the world increasingly sees the purchase and importation of African big game as morally repugnant, even if it’s not out-and-out illegal. Thus, the transaction is shaded as something other than a direct sale.

We know that elephants roam up to thirty miles a day in the wild. Female elephants stay with their families all their lives. They are highly intelligent, communicative, and have complex social structures that are critical to their welfare. We know that in captivity they grow depressed (indicated by abnormal stereotypic behaviors such as head bobbing and swaying) and have diminished life expectancies, although an elephant’s natural lifespan is similar to that of a human.

In zoos and circuses, however, captive elephants are frequently euthanized at an early age due to painful arthritis and other foot problems—conditions that are unique to unnatural and inappropriate captive settings. These zoo executives and their private partners in Swaziland are hoping we’ll forget those things. They’re hoping the people of Kansas will forget, too, and pay $13.95 to see elephants fresh out of Africa right off Interstate 235 in Wichita.

ALDF has joined with dozens of scientists, conservation and animal advocacy organizations to stop this importation, and we hope you will join us and spread the word. The elephants, after all, don’t have the luxury of forgetting.

LOS ANGELES, CA — In a decade flush with elephant ‘retirements’ from circuses and zoos nationwide, three American zoos—the Dallas Zoo, the Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, Kansas, and the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska—intend to import 18 wild-captured elephants from Swaziland, Africa.

Yesterday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), PETA, Performing Animal Welfare Society, and captive wildlife attorney Deborah Robinson submitted formal comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging the agency to decline issuance of the permit necessary for the import.

The intended use of these 18 elephants is to further the captive breeding programs that have proven unsustainable in U.S. zoos. This intended plan would violate the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the treaty that regulates international trade in wildlife, which expressly defines captive breeding programs as “commercial activity” and prohibits the import of African elephants for such purposes.

“It is widely known and accepted that elephants do not thrive in zoos,” says Stephen Wells, executive director of Animal Legal Defense Fund. “Inhumane and unnatural conditions of captivity contribute to the aberrant behaviors, such as bobbing and weaving, and most elephants confined in zoos die prematurely due to health problems that are unique to captive populations. Captive elephant breeding programs are undertaken to boost zoo attendance, rather than repopulate range states or serve any legitimate conservation purpose.”

Further, elephants are family oriented—female elephants stay with their mothers for their entire lives, and male offspring stay with their mothers into their teens. The import would break up many family units.

If approved, after the import, fewer than 25 elephants would remain in Swaziland.

P.T. Barnum, circus magnate and author of The Art of Money Getting, once said, “Nobody ever lost a dollar underestimating the taste of the American public.” In that cynical spirit, Barnum bought Jumbo the elephant from the London Zoo in 1882 and had her shipped across the Atlantic so he could haul her across the country in chains as a spectacle for profit. Ironically, years earlier, as a Connecticut legislator, Barnum fought against slavery and in favor of the 13th Amendment that freed them from chains. Like America, Barnum was complicated—profit and freedom in conflict.

For three decades ALDF has fought in courtrooms and legislatures on behalf of animals used in entertainment, improving living conditions, documenting and punishing abusers, and ultimately lobbying for outright freedom. Our most recent work in this arena includes:

Lolita the Orca

On behalf of Lolita, a captive orca held in the smallest orca tank in North America at the Miami Seaquarium, in 2013 ALDF and others petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to protect Lolita under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In February 2015, the NMFS announced a rule granting Lolita the same status under the ESA as the rest of her family in the wild, opening the door to further potential action to advocate on her behalf. In July 2015, ALDF and a coalition of partners hit the Miami Seaquarium with a lawsuit contending that the facility’s imprisonment of Lolita—currently held without the company of any others of her kind in a cramped tank with no protection from the harsh sun—constitutes a violation of the ESA.

Tony the Tiger

ALDF is fighting a lengthy legal battle to allow Tony, a tiger held captive in a truck stop parking lot in Gross Tete, Louisiana, to be moved to a sanctuary. Tony’s owner, Michael Sandlin, has aggressively fought to keep Tony at his truck stop, but ALDF will continue to fight on Tony’s behalf.

Ricky the Bear

On behalf of Ricky, a female black bear held for 16 years in an undersized chain-link and concrete cage at a Pennsylvania roadside attraction, ALDF filed suit in December 2014. Citing a lack of enrichment, poor overall care and a potential threat to public safety, the suit sought to revoke the owner’s menagerie permit. In February 2015, the owner agreed to a settlement wherein Ricky would be released to live out her days in rolling grassland at the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, Colorado.

Ben the Bear

On behalf of Ben, a bear confined in a North Carolina roadside zoo, ALDF and PETA assisted local residents in suing for her release. Ben was suffering not only physiological injuries but psychological and emotional distress. . Citing unsanitary conditions, hazardous enclosures, failure to provide adequate veterinary care, and failure to supply sufficient quantities of food and potable water, the lawsuit resulted in a victory when a Cumberland County District Court injunction ordered Ben released to reside permanently at the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) sanctuary in California, where he can forage, swim, and build his den under the trees.

Lucky the Elephant

On behalf of Lucky, an Asian elephant captured from the wild in Thailand and kept at the San Antonio Zoo for over 50 years, in April 2015 ALDF sent a notice of intent to sue the Zoo for mistreatment, alleging that the Zoo is violating the Endangered Species Act by keeping Lucky in conditions that injure her physically and psychologically—she has been kept alone since the 2013 death of her companion, Boo. The letter was sent on behalf of San Antonio residents requesting that the Zoo retire Lucky to the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, where she can be with other Asian elephants in a habitat closer to natural conditions for elephants in the wild.

Cricket Hollow Zoo

On behalf of the endangered tigers, lemurs, and gray wolves held at the Cricket Hollow Zoo in Iowa, ALDF filed a lawsuit in 2014 for violations of the ESA—specifically for failing to provide proper care. Since filing the lawsuit, ALDF has obtained alarming records from investigations conducted by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), showing that the zoo is also violating the Animal Welfare Act. In June and early July, Cricket Hollow Zoo was forced to close temporarily as a result of the USDA’s suspension of its operating license—a fact that ALDF relayed to the United States District Court as it considers the ESA violations lawsuit.

ALDF will continue to lobby on behalf of humanity toward animals confined, neglected, or abused by the entertainment industry and anywhere else in the world. You can receive updates regarding our progress by subscribing to our Email Newsletters and Action Alerts at aldf.org/signup. And if you’re not already a member of ALDF, please join us.

“The desire for wealth is nearly universal, and none can say it is not laudable, provided the possessor of it accepts its responsibilities, and uses it as a friend to humanity.” – P.T. Barnum, The Art of Money Getting

We’re obliterating African elephants, killing 96 of them every day: 100,000 in just three years. The reason is simple and familiar: human greed. Elephants have many wonderful qualities, yet they are being killed to supply their tusks to the ivory trade. And, despite the efforts of many great organizations, passionate advocates, and even some governments, the slaughter continues at an unprecedented pace, a pace that the elephant birth rate cannot keep up with. The result will be the extinction of African elephants within one decade.

For an optimist like me, this is a trying time. I’m losing hope. As long as we humans view African elephants as nothing more than a commercially useful body part, the mass slaughter will continue. And, time is quickly running out. Therefore, I propose that we radically change how we view, discuss and ultimately protect elephants.

My view of elephants has been influenced by the scientific studies that inform us that they are large brained, highly intelligent and sentient social beings with complex communication skills. One recent study showed that wild elephants distinguish the sound of bees from the sound of human voices, and communicate those distinctions to other members of their herd. They signal each other, not only that there is danger, but also to identify the type of danger, bees or humans.

Other scientists are recording that elephants form lifelong matriarchal family units, in which they teach their children everything they need to know to survive in the wild; that they cooperate with each other to solve problems, and that some of them suffer from PTSD. Anecdotal examples of elephants exhibiting compassion, both to their own kind and ours, abound.

One of my favorites is the story of an African elephant who accidentally injured a man in the bush, breaking his leg. Displaying the sort of empathy and intelligence that was once thought to be possessed only by humans, this elephant moved him out of the hot sun and placed him under a tree. Even though her own family moved on, she stayed with him for a day, until his villagers realized he was missing and came to rescue him. Once he was safe, the elephant moved on to rejoin her family.

Leading elephant expert, Joyce Poole, has observed that when elephants are ready to do a group charge, they look at each other to make sure everyone is ready, and after the charge, they celebrate, lifting their heads high into the air, clanking their tusks, and making trumpeting and rumbling noises.

If we can learn to see elephants as the remarkable individuals they are, then we will cease asking the question “what is the sustainable use of wild elephants?” All use, all exploitation must stop. I am part of a growing group of people who no longer view elephants as merely things, who recognize their extraordinary capacities, and who want to engage in a dialogue about completely altering the way we view and treat these wonderful beings. And, we need to start now, because, by the end of this day, another 96 will have died horribly and senselessly.

In an article appearing in the latest issue of the Quinnipiac Law Review, I argue that elephants must be granted legal rights. “In all legally relevant ways, elephants possess qualities that compel us to put aside convention and convenience, and to realize that for too long we have ignored and violated their rights. Elephants are not things. Legal systems which treat them as such are inherently flawed.”

Legal rights for elephants would enable us to codify and enforce broad new legal protections of their lives, well-being, and dignity. We could no longer exploit them, kill them, or use them for our own purposes. We would allow them to live out their natural lives, with their families, in their native lands. Now that would be something to rumble and trumpet about.

]]>http://aldf.org/blog/the-remarkable-lives-of-elephants/feed/20Hawaii Poised to Become the First State to Ban Wild Animal Entertainment Actshttp://aldf.org/blog/hawaii-poised-to-become-the-first-state-to-ban-wild-animal-entertainment-acts/
http://aldf.org/blog/hawaii-poised-to-become-the-first-state-to-ban-wild-animal-entertainment-acts/#commentsTue, 12 May 2015 18:33:21 +0000http://aldf.org/?p=50865Last week, Hawaii Governor David Ige announced his pledge to cease issuing permits for wild animal performances in the State of Hawaii. This would make Hawaii the first state in the U.S. to effectively ban wild animal entertainment acts.

Governor Ige’s announcement comes twenty years after the tragic incident in Honolulu involving an elephant named Tyke, who was trained and used by the notorious Hawthorn Corporation—an exhibitor with a lengthy history of violating the federal Animal Welfare Act. Despite Tyke’s history of escapes and attacks, Hawthorn still provided her to be used in Circus International at the Neal Blaisdell Center in Honolulu in 1994. While in Honolulu, Tyke went on another rampage, trampling a groomer, killing a handler, and injuring a dozen bystanders on the streets of downtown Honolulu. Local police ended up opening fire on the panicked and frightened Tyke, who sustained 86 gunshot wounds before she finally collapsed. Tyke then suffered for another two hours as she slowly died on the street from her injuries. A new documentary about the incident, called Tyke the Elephant Outlaw, currently is appearing at major film festivals around the world.

The Hawaii Department of Agriculture plans to place the proposed policy change on its June agenda. But because that rulemaking process could take several months, Gov. Ige’s has ordered the Department of Agriculture to immediately deny all further permits for wild animal performances.

ALDF applauds Governor Ige for this progressive and compassionate decision to make Hawaii the first U.S. state to end the cruel and outdated practice of using wild and exotic animals for entertainment. Recognition is also due to those advocates and organizations on the ground who engage with decision-makers to lay the groundwork for such victories. ALDF will continue to assist in these efforts by employing all litigation and legislative means help to bring an end to all further use of animals in entertainment acts.